Doing The Right Thing: The Left Helps Palin Turn Out Traditionalists
Posted on August 31, 2008 at 2:29 pmThe Tennessee Guerilla Women point to some progressive bloggers who are giddy to point out that Republican Veep nominee-to-be Sarah Palin may have conceived her first child while unmarried.
Kudos, I suppose, for being clever enough to do the math but what exactly is the tactical political advantage of pointing this out?
As the “outers” mention, they are progressives so it doesn’t really matter to them whether a child is made “legitimate” by marriage or not so one can assume that their objective is to somehow show the hypocrisy of a conservative and spread the seeds of dissent.
Yes, social conservatives believe that sex outside of marriage is ill advised. However, when sex is had outside of marriage and a life is conceived because of it, socially conservative also believe in “doing the right thing.” Which Sarah and Todd Palin did by getting married.
This line attack betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the traditionalist and conservative mind. The fact that Sarah Palin may have participated in a “shotgun marriage” is not a strike against her but shining star in her virtue column.
Compounding the virtue, of course, is the fact that she is still married to Todd despite what may have been the somewhat expedited circumstances of the proposal. If what Americablog says is true, then Sarah Palin did not only do what a social or theological conservative would likely counsel, she has succeeded in proving the path she took as a fruitful one.
Sarah Palin not only had the baby conceived out of wedlock and married the father, she proceeded to have four more children with that same man while maintaining a career and rising to the office of Governor of her state.
Sarah Palin’s alleged “illegitimate conception” pretty much systematically unravels several assumptions that many progressives and feminists hold regarding traditional life, codes and mores. Sarah Palin essentially embraced all those “patriarchal” rules that have been foisted women from the beginning of time and actually thrived either because of (or despite) holding true to traditionalism.
This seed of dissent will find no purchase among traditionalists and pointing it out only serves to undermine the progressive, secular values many of the Left hold dear.
Just as progressives will likely want to steer clear of the abortion issue with Palin due to her down syndrome child, so too will progressives want to shy away from mention of her first child’s date of conception.
Sarah Palin is already a darling 0f the traditional Right. The only thing this tactic will do is succeed in raising her status to that of full blown icon and matyr.
Comments
25 Responses to “Doing The Right Thing: The Left Helps Palin Turn Out Traditionalists”
On the one hand, it’s a stupid thing to bring up. There are plenty of other issues on which you could criticize this woman. There’s no point to this. I don’t really care when or in what matter she had her baby, and I imagine I’m not the only one.
For me though, this doesn’t speak so much to her values as it does to general Republican hypocrisy. They don’t seem to think that the whole “abstinence until marriage” thing applies to them.
However, outside of a few blogs I don’t see this becoming a big issue in the campaign. Nor should the Down’s syndrome baby take away from the reproductive rights issue–it was Palin’s choice and not the government’s to have the baby, was it not?
Good post Klondike. GoldnI helps too to illustrate the lack of understanding with her comment regarding the Down’s syndrome baby. She, like her sisters over at TGW, don’t quite get it.
No, as a matter of logic the choice to carry a Down’s Syndrome baby to term should have no impact on the question of abortion as a policy mattter. However, consider that roughly 80% of Down’s Syndrome babies are aborted. Abortion is not merely a procedure but a mindset. It offers the promise of convenience and liberation even as it enslaves and de-sensitizes. When Sarah and husband Todd embraced that baby - pre-irth - and spoke of the joy and blessing that he would bring - post-birth - they revealed who they were and how they roll. Her biography will do, has done already, so much to energize limited government conservatives who are not comfortable in the disposable culture that surrounds us.
My mistake. The TGW do seem to “get it.” I didn’t actually read their post until I finished responding to GoldnI. Their analysis is on target.
What any of this has to do with a person’s ability to serve in the office sought is far from me.
Actually, for all their crazy, I’d bet if you asked the TGW, they’d probably argue that there should not be any constraints on the right to choose. Their objection is to using the premarital sex issue as a way to criticize someone. I share that objection, although I think it does highlight conservative hypocrisy.
If one of the Obamas’ daughters had been born out of wedlock, you’d better believe the media would be making a huge deal out of it.
Whereas previously, a Down’s child could be born without the prior knowledge of the mother, going forward, a parent with a Down’s child will likely have made a conscious choice to have that child. As prenatal testing for trisomy 21 becomes ubiquitous, Down’s children (and eventually those with other genetic disorders) will increasingly become symbols of faith – a freak show meant to communicate the “family values” of their parents. The children will become public sacrifices made by their parents for their faith. They will be a symbol of religious reverence in the same way as the scarred backs of Catholics who flagellate themselves, or Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire, or Sunni Muslims who mutilate their girl’s genitals or Shiites who bloody their children’s heads with swords.
Genuine moral virtues – such as integrity, honesty, and productivity are not useful as evidence of religious virtue. To the extent that their practical benefit is visible to everyone, they do not represent the special domain of religion. To demonstrate religious virtue, it is necessary to sacrifice authentic moral values in favor of “religious” values. The particular object of the sacrifice is not important – there is nothing particularly “biblical” about being prolife (the Christian bible just as easily supports the opposite position.) If Christian fundamentalists decided that cutting of one’s hand sufficed as proof of moral virtue, they would be wrong to do so, but not much more so than the numerous other ways that people find to be self-destructive.
What is really vicious about fundamentalists in America is that the prey on the most vulnerable –poor pregnant young girls and women, those dying from painful terminal illnesses, the loved ones of brain-dead patients, — and children afflicted with terrible genetic illnesses. One can at least grasp the moral indifference with which a fundamentalist can force a single young mother to abandon her goals and dreams and condemn her and her child to poverty. But what can we say about a parent that chooses a life of suffering upon their child? If we are morally outraged by child rapists, how should we judge a parent who chooses a lifetime of suffering on their own child?
Conceiving a child out-of-wedlock is not evidence of hypocrisy for a Christian couple or traditionalists. Not close. It seems to be a term - hypocrisy - that is often used imprecisely.
And this?
…But what can we say about a parent that chooses a life of suffering upon their child? If we are morally outraged by child rapists, how should we judge a parent who chooses a lifetime of suffering on their own child?
Sich Heil baby!!! The Nazi party is not dead.
This is an excellent analysis, and it pretty much nails a criticism I’ve had with my progressive fellows but haven’t yet found the words to articulate. They see a contradiction of values in portions of traditionalist reasoning where actually there is none. They’re trying to drive a wedge that just simply isn’t there.
TGW’s analysis makes one big mistake, specifically where she impugns motives. She ascribes misogyny to Avarosis on account of the fact that he is using someone else’s definition of “illegitimate,” and simply doesn’t get it right. She is basically accusing him of being sexist for believing in the cartoon version of fundamentalism which she herself has promoted in the past.
The children will become public sacrifices made by their parents for their faith. They will be a symbol of religious reverence in the same way as the scarred backs of Catholics who flagellate themselves, or Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire, or Sunni Muslims who mutilate their girl’s genitals or Shiites who bloody their children’s heads with swords.
Or, perhaps the parents think that innocent human life shouldn’t be D&Cd.
And I thought we Religious Conservatives were supposed to be the judgmental ones.
Like mother like daughter. It was just announced that Palin’s 17 year old daughter is five months pregnant. Apparently Palin is only not against the right to terminate a pregnancy, but sex education and birth control as well. Conservatives like to preach abstinence; the unplanned pregnancies of Palin and her teenage daughter prove the utter hypocrisy of such a position. And if Palin did, in fact, get married because of pregnancy (as she is no doubt forcing her daughter to do) but refuses to acknowledge it, what does that say about her honesty and integrity? Is this who we really want to be a heart beat away from the presidency of the United States?
[...] Like mother like daughter. It was just… [...]
HeroicLife wrote: “Genuine moral virtues – such as integrity, honesty, and productivity are not useful as evidence of religious virtue.”
You have no basis for claiming these “virtues” are “genuine” without religion. Let’s vote worldwide. I get Russia and China.
Also: “But what can we say about a parent that chooses a life of suffering upon their child? If we are morally outraged by child rapists, how should we judge a parent who chooses a lifetime of suffering on their own child?”
Even though she didn’t kill Trig in the womb, it’s not too late for Obamacide. Let’s just let him (it?) die. Right? Secular progressives rule!!
Also, is it unusual for a first child to be born after an 8-month pregnancy? I think not.
Finally, Chris wrote: “And if Palin did, in fact, get married because of pregnancy (as she is no doubt forcing her daughter to do) but refuses to acknowledge it, what does that say about her honesty and integrity?”
Some of you folks are a little confused about who the hypocrites are here. Parental consent is not required for abortion in Alaska. Bristol need not have told her mother. And Palin’s sex life 18+ years ago with her husband is not relevant to this election.
The real issue is whether a normal family can still survive the American political process. The secondary issue is how long it will take for the minions of the left to turn us into Rwanda.
Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, set high standards for themselves as compared to liberals who seem to have no standards at all. When conservatives, who are mere humans after all, fail on occasion to meet their own high standards, the liberals accuse them of hypocrisy. People who set no standards for themselves and still dare to point out the failures of others are the true hypocrites.
One can only imagine the firestorm this would be if Obama and his wife had gotten pregnant out of wedlock. You conservative hypocrites would be howling to the moon. And now you are whining because people are rightfully pointing out the shambles in Palin’s family life means she can’t even get THAT house in order.
Take your “abstinence only” sex education and “family values” and shove them. You really have no values, other than greed.
Mike, I hope you do not truly believe your pathetic statements. As a conservative, I personally know many conservatives who have no standards, must less high standards, as well as many liberals who have very high standards. Your across the board labels are pathetic and show you to be an extremely narrow minded individual which contributes to the internal turmoil within this country.
[...] Mike, I hope you do not truly believe… [...]
I just hope you all know Levi was a good boy before he got involved with that Palin family. They need to stop trying to make him marry her. he’s not the father of the baby, another boy is. She’s ruining his right to have a good future by pinning the baby on him.
And I think you should all know that Stawsfield is a paid Obama campaign staffer who’s being ordered to post this meme on the blogs in order to smear Palin.
Pretty pathetic, Obamabot. But not surprising.
I don’t think the focus should be on Sarah Palin’s daughter or home life.
I do think we should discuss the fact that as Gov. of Alaska she cut funding for children with disabilities, and also slashed funding for programs offering safe-havens for pregnant teens.
Admirable that she can afford to sustain her own family, but what about those in less fortunate circumstances? Hypocrisy, thy name is Palin.
HeroicLife,
That’s one of the most despicable, hate-filled polemics I have ever had the misfortune to read.
I am the father of a special needs child. Sure she has struggles, but she loves life. You can see it in her face, her smile, the way her eyes light up; you can hear it in her infectious laugh; you can feel it when she runs up to hug you. Her life is not a sacrifice to her or to anyone else; it is a blessing from the Creator of life, another soul made in His very own image. We love her, as we do all of our children, with every fiber in our being. And she loves us back.
Killing someone because she is weak and is a burden to others is nothing short of murder. And those who promote the views you have expressed have already committed murder in their heart. To deny another existence is to hate them. . . . I just paused to say a prayer for you, that God convict you of the evil you have written and that He save you soul from hell. I too am a wretched sinner, so I am not your judge, but there is a Judge, whether or not you accept or believe that.
Advising a young girl who has become pregnant out-of-wedlock to kill her own child does not solve her problem; it only compounds it. To give her such advice is not to love her, but to hate her. And when you find a young girl who has followed such advice, to love her is not to affirm her decision, but to reveal to her the evil she has done and to direct her to the Great Physician who can cure all of our diseases and forgive all of our sins.
HeroicLife,
May I suggest that you watch the following short video?
http://www.blueberryshoes.com/psa/index.html
Respect . . . even for those with disabilities. Put that in your sanctimonious “liberal” pipe and smoke it. Do you hate your own life as much as you hate the lives of others?
HH:
I am a teacher at an all-girls college and my 18-year-old daughter attends the same. Do we really want our young daughters to emulate Palin’s 17-year-old daughter? I should hope not. What kind of message are we sending out to them?
HH,
In what respect?
We certainly don’t want them emulating Palin’s daughter in having sexual intercourse before she is married. However, should that occur — and let’s face it, it often does and often has throughout history (I’ve read somewhere that about 1/3 of colonial brides walked down the aisles with their first child growing inside them) — I would hope that my daughter would emulate Bristol Palin and do the only responsible thing to do given the earlier sin, give birth to her child and marry the child’s father.
And let’s be clear, neither Sarah Palin in giving birth to Trig knowing he had Down Syndrome nor her daughter in giving birth to her baby have made a choice. They have done the only thing they could do without violating the moral law. There was no choice to be made. To say they had a choice is to confuse the meanings of “can” and “may.” They could kill their children; they may not do so.
I agree that deciding whether or when another human being has reached the point at which he or she has a right to life is above Sen. Obama’s pay grade. It is above my pay grade. It is above the pay grade of every human who has ever lived save one. That decision has been made by the only One with authority to make it: “Thou shalt not kill.” It is simply our duty to recognize and submit to that law of nature and nature’s God and to love the ones to whom He gives life.
Our duty, and our joy if we will only embrace it, is to love one another. And love is an action verb, not a passive one. To love is to care for others, not merely to have warm feelings of affection for them. To kill another is to hate him or her. To care for another’s needs, no matter how burdensome that may be, it to love them. It’s as simple as that.
If teenagers didn’t know HOW to do it, they couldn’t very well get pregnant, could they?